Playground designers at HNS

Saturday, 5 November 2016

THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2011, POSTS FROM THE FIRST 3 WEEKS WERE LOST AFTER THE BLOG WAS HACKED. POSTS FROM WEEK 4 ONWARD WERE RECOVERED AND ARE REPOSTED HERE IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM....

Friday, 16 September 2011
Week seven - presenting to the client and closing the
book

Our final session was electric. The children had worked extremely hard on their birds eye view plans of the playarea - and had rehearsed the details of how their work was to be presented to the 'clients'.Tim and Gerry from the council had received their invitations (created electronically) and arrived right on time. As we arrived in the "board room / classroom" we were welcomed with a waiata sung by a student. The classroom was organised with a stage area at one end. The bat research boards were on display. The finished birds eye plans were also on the walls - grouped according to the zone. People had prompt cards and had rehearsed all morning (and through morning tea) to get their moves right.We were greeted in Maori and taken through a series of experiences to show the process the children had been through. Metaxis was strong here, as children were clearly in a familiar "show and tell" classroom mode and only residualy aware of their identity as a company. At the same time they were very clear about what they had been doing, who for, and the purposes and challenges they had experienced.The presentation lasted for an hour and was co-ordinated by the children. We saw a slide show of pictures from the field trip, we watched the enthusiastic "bat moves" generated in the movement work. we heard one of the letters that had been written to the concerned resident, Gwenyth. We were also invited to tour around the bat research boards and ask questions and then finally the finished designs were shared.Perhaps my favourite moment in all of this involved the children's inclusion of "Gwyneth". At the start of the session I had signalled that Gwyneth was present, by asking them to agree to representing her by the black hat i had worn when I went into role. The hat was placed in a front row seat and one of the girls welcomed Gwyneth and thanked her for coming. Later, when everyone was walking around looking at the bat boards, one of the boys approached Lynette and I to say, "I don't think Gwyneth is too impressed - she's just sitting there". Sure enough, the hat was still just sitting there on the chair. I wondered if I should offer to go into role as Gwyneth. But the boy in question solved things by saying "I think I should show her around". He picked up the hat, looked over at me and held the hat above his head "I think she's about this tall?" - then, still holding the hat high, he walked over to the first group. The children in that group responded by saying "hi Gwyneth" and proceeded to share their research information. The boy was careful to make sure that Gwyneth visited all the bat research boards and saw all the concept designs.At the end of the sharing, Drama for learning was used again. Gerry and Tim stood in front of the class and I asked the children to imagine the two of them driving back to their office at the council. "I wonder what they are saying to each other?" The children were asked to be the voices of the two men, giving their responses to what they had seen. Children showed how proud they were of their work, by responding with lots of congratulatory messages "They must have worked so hard - That Wild at Heart is an awesome company". Other comments made it clear how aware children were of the values and principles underlying their work "They stayed true to their mission statement" "I liked how they used all recycled material". Other children enjoyed the opportunity to extemporise in role and took a lighthearted direction "Do you fancy a coffee? Yes, let's stop at Starbucks"Then I challenged the children to take a different perspective. "Clearly the clients are
very satisfied with the work the company has done. At the same time, as professionals,
they will of course be weighing up all possible issues. There will be questions remaining,
things they are still wondering... I wonder what they are still wondering, or worrying
about?"
Again children provided the "voices in the head" and they had many responses "I wonder
where they are going to get all the water from - they can't use the river water because it's
dirty" "I wonder if it's really the right place for a play area?" "What about the bats - it won't
harm them, but will it help them?" "Have they communicated properly with the
neighours?" "Do this company really mean what they say?" It would be interesting to
know how many of these were re-expressions of the concerns I brought in as Gwyneth,
and how many were new ideas conjured by the children themselves. Either way, they
demonstrated an awareness of the complexity of the issue.
Once we had said goodbye to Tim and Gerry in their role as clients, we had a further
discussion about the questions Tim and Gerry had raised. I did some musing out loud about whether they
were questions with an easy answer... and whether some of the most important
questions perhaps did NOT have answers....This led to an even deeper discussion about why we continue with things when they get
hard.... As I said to the company members / children "This playground design business is
HARD every time we do something there's another problem to think about - every day
there's something tricky. You've been doing this for a long time - why do you stick at it, if
it is so hard?" Each child was invited to think of their answer to this - and to stand up and
make a statement.
The statements sounded to me alot like statements about classroom learning. Children
may not "really be" expert playground designers, but they know about sticking to things
that are tricky and they know about coming day after day to work (in school). Each
person said something different - including things like "It's in our mission statement that
we are for the people" "We never give up we just try harder" "The hard stuff is the fun
stuff" "It's the challenges that we enjoy the most" "My team mates rely on me" "It's worth
it for the smiles on the customer's faces"
I love how drama / MOTE allows participants to be the best person they can be: without
the constraints of reality they can play out the highest ethical stance and feel what that
(really) feels like. It felt like goosebumps to me...
Children were tired by this time. I felt we needed to hear from Gwyneth since she had
played such a key role in the whole process. A sort of 'conscience alley" was attempted
in which the hat was passed along a line of children for them to speak in role as
Gwyneth, but I don't think I facilitated it terrifically well. Children did their best but it
wasn't as rich as what had occurred earlier - or what came next.
The final reflection involved looking back on the seven weeks we had spent together. I
introduced the metaphor of a large book telling the story of Wild at Heart - we all used
our 'drama eyes' and agreed we were holding our own book of memories. One child
struggled a bit because apparently his book was only the size of an atom - though he
agreed to hold my book for me, especially when I showed him my favourite page, which
had a picture of him in it.
Children were invited to look through the book and talk about their favourite page.
Different ones were chosen - one boy said "I can't chose because they are all my
favourites" a girl said "I'm looking at page 752, where we were working so hard on those
designs". A number of children mentioned the value they placed on the relationships with
student teachers and myself. Others talked about how they had enjoyed the exactitude
of working on the birds eye view plans.
It was time to finish. We took a moment to write a private (imaginary) message inside the
last cover of the book, and then we put it on an (imaginary) shelf just over our shoulder,
so we could open and read it anytime. The bell had gone so this bit was rushed but still
felt like a useful closure ritual - one I learned about from Julia Walshaw at the conference
and have used a few times... thanks Julia!
There was quite a bit of emotion all round as we said our goodbyes. Just as well we
have those books to remember each other by! I think I agree with the little girl who
claimed "we will remember doing this for always" and was very touched when one child
said a little sadly - "I don't want it to stop - I just wish we could do this all the time". Me
too.

THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2011, POSTS FROM THE FIRST 3 WEEKS WERE LOST AFTER THE BLOG WAS HACKED. POSTS FROM WEEK 4 ONWARD WERE RECOVERED AND ARE REPOSTED HERE IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM....

Week six - finalising the commission
By the time week six rolled around, students had done quite a lot of work on their
concept designs for the playground. With Lynette's support they had worked in small
groups, each responsible for a designated 'zone' within the whole park. Lynette
encouraged them to work collectively, but also individually - thanks to the fact that this
was a fictional context there was plenty of room for each child to make their own
individual decisions and pursue their design ideas (the client would take these away and
consider all of them carefully). The designs took on board the movement qualities they
had explored together, and the features of bats they had researched. Account was also
taken of the features of each zone, as discovered on the field trip (e.g. whether this was
a sunny or shady corner, whether tall trees could be incorporated and so on).
In terms of ensuring real learning about design principles, Lynette worked with the
children on the concept of "flow" - making sure that one design zone flowed well into the
next. Thus, children had to communicate with people from other groups and maintain an
awareness of how the overall playground was shaping up.
And the ideas were terrific - they included flying fox type zip slides, a steep slide that
drops the user into darkness, flips them upside down and wraps them in winglike covers
(giving the experience of being a bat) - a water slide for summer, which over winter could
be pumped dry and used as a skate park - the list was long and exciting. Children had
also taken into consideration the neighbours' concerns and included a dog walking area
(even an adventure area for the dogs and owners to share), soundproofing walls, height
limitations (to allow the roosting bats to continue their flightpaths - as well as protecting
the neighour's views). There was also a Tai chi garden in zone one (taking into account
the fact that someone had been in that part of the park doing Tai chi when we visited).
The educational possibilities of the play area had not been forgotten either with
information boards about the bats included at strategic points around the pathways.
The intention for this session was to deepen the learning in the technical aspects of
design.
Our objective was to teach the principle of "Birds eye view" drawing. We could have
done this by having a teacher 'up the front' of the class. We considered framing this as
"professional development" for the company.... a mode which has worked well in the
past. But by putting the student teachers into role as 'trainees" without a clue about the
plan, we found a way to bring the new learning to the children without breaking their
status as experts....
So Children were invited to watch as the student teachers went into role as company
'trainees' gathered around a playground design plan. This was a 'proper' professional
lanscape plan that had been drawn up for a school playground and garden (Heathcote
always stresses the use of "real" "adult" resources and this one was provided by Anna,
one of the student teachers, who had done a course in landscape design... she made a
few amendments to make it look like the plan had come from the "wild at Heart"
archives.)
Children gathered round and listened in whilst the trainees looked confused about the
plan "I found this in the archives - and I was wondering what it was? It says that bit's a
building - but where are the doors and the windows?" etc etc. Periodically, the scene was
'paused' and children were asked "what do you see here?". They successfully arrived at
the idea that the plan was a bird's eye view - and clearly the trainees didn't understand
this. I finished by saying "Would we have the time, do you think, to offer some
professional development to the trainees in how to understand and draw from a bird's
eye view?"
In pairs, children took charge of a trainee and explained birds eye view to them. In
preparing for the lesson, the student teachers had brought a range of small objects with
them (cylinders, boxes etc) and the children "helped" them work out how to draw these
from directly above. The value here, of course, was the ways that children found to
explain and describe bird's eye view... "Oh dear, you are doing a good job but it's a bit
wrong... If I could just explain it to you one more time ... yes, that's looking better ...."
When everyone had had a chance to try the exercise, I travelled around and placed a
hand on the shoulder of the "trainee" / student teacher. Children / company members
were invited to speak the thoughts of the trainee and express what they had learned.

Statements included "I think I get it now" and "I see - You don't draw the bit that's
underneath unless it's BIGGER than the top and sticks out". Of course this was really a
way of getting the children to speak up about their own learning and understandings of
the birds eye view drawing process.
After practising on the small objects, the groups moved out to the playarea (the ACTUAL
playarea) outside the classroom and had a go at the much trickier job of creating a birds
eye view of the large pieces of play equipment. Again, some rich discussion was had
here as the children / company members mentored the trainees / student teachers. "You
can't actually get up above it, so you have to imagine you are flying over it". One child
paused to ask me "How HIGH is the bird flying that's got the bird's eye view - because
that would make all the difference to what we draw". What a super question! Where
children were still a little stuck on the principles of bird's eye view, there was an
opportunity for the student teacher to take a more 'instructional' stance and some did
this.
Back to the "board room" to close the session and make a list of what still required doing
before the presentation to clients next week. There was quite a long list created by the
class - from invitations to the client (and the neighbours), to completion of plans, internal
communication to the construction team, rehearsal of the presentation, provision of
refreshments and so on.
With only one week to go until the presentation of ideas to the client, we made a list of
what we felt needed to be achieved. Children

THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2011, POSTS FROM THE FIRST 3 WEEKS WERE LOST AFTER THE BLOG WAS HACKED. POSTS FROM WEEK 4 ONWARD WERE RECOVERED AND ARE REPOSTED HERE IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM....

Sunday, 11 September 2011
Week 5 extra session
Lynette was absent when I called in for the extra session with the class but she gave us
the OK to go ahead. What a trusting sort she must be! Gay introduced the reliever
teacher who, as it happened, has a wealth of experience in local theatre so was open to
us having a session in drama.
As described in the previous blog, the purpose of the visit was to try to build on the key
tension and see whether we could explore a more 'serious' response to the issues at
hand.
Overnight I had put quite a bit of thinking in to the issue of HOW to go about this. I was
reminded of Heathcote's words - can't recall where she wrote them - something about
"every convention I have ever invented is so I can avoid having to tell children off". In this
case the children had not done anything wrong (I certainly didn't want to come across as
"telling them off") but I did want suggest a shift towards a more ethical and serious
minded response to the issues at hand. So the question was how to build on the drama
work of the previous session and suggest reworking it without seeming too critical?
Eventually I decided to combine straight honesty with a dramatic convention.
I had promised the children they would receive a strongly worded letter of complaint from
the local residents. My intention had been to write this based on the dramatised
conversations the children themselves had shown (there is something rich about giving
the children back their own words in another form)... However, what I did was as follows.
I arrived in the classroom with a letter (stamped and addressed to the company) but
containing a blank piece of paper. I told the children that I (Viva the teacher) had a
problem... I reminded them that I had gone away to write a letter in role as one of the
people from the neighbourhood, but said that I had found it difficult to do so convincingly.
We discussed why this might be - and the conversation turned to how 'cartoonlike' some
of the scenes had been. We talked about how enjoyable it had been to generate the
rumours - but I asked them whether the conversations we had heard seemed like the

kind of things neighbours would actually bring up? I wondered if they could see my
problem in trying to write the letter as a strongly worded, realistic objection....
I guess what I was doing here was trying to be really authentic with them about the real
issue of how to make the drama take on a more serious edge. I guess I was also
adopting a dramatic stance as "she who needs help" (the difference on this occasion
was that I was in quasi role as the TEACHER needing help, rather than teacher in role
as someone within the drama).
My sense was that this worked OK. The letter served as a symbol of the drama we were
co-constructing together, whilst also distancing them from any sense of critique. I think
so anyway. The blank letter became a mini tension for us to solve together.
I was in two minds about the next bit of the lesson... but decided to go with a bit of
teacher 'modelling.' I asked the class to imagine they were peeping through the windows
of a local cafe and invited them to watch another conversation between two locals (Gay
and I in role). Children chose names for us - Gwyneth and Betty - and we improvised a
conversation showing our concern about not being able to walk our dogs in the park
during the construction process.
When we came out of role, Children were invited to talk about what happened in this
scene... not just what the two women said to each other, but also the things that made it
seem life like.... I'm still not sure whether I did the 'right' thing here - the last thing I want
to do is say to children "No - do it like me" but it seemed useful to engage with this group
on a wee conversation ABOUT drama and acting.
It's not an area I have entered into before. In fact, I would have tended to say "don't talk
about it- just get on with it and trust drama to do its thing...." However, on this occasion it
felt 'right'.
The conversation brought up the difference between "acting a part" and "being" in role.
The children said things like "It seemed realer and more believable" and "the things you
are talking about are more everyday stuff" and "the faces are kind of serious" - even "you
didn't make jokes or try to make us laugh". From this point, the children revisited the
roles they had taken on the day before but with an effort to "be" the role more than "act"
it. (I know these distinctions are crude but they were the terms that were used by the
children).This time the conversations between neighbours were far richer, more spontaneous and
less mannered. I remember that the atmosphere in the class seemed much more
focussed. The children were really tired (it had been school cross country in the morning)
but they seemed to really get somewhere. We finished the session by reflecting back on
the experience - I told them that it now seemed possible to write the letter (we had
solved our mini tension, if you like). And I promised to write it and get it to them right
away.
So that was the extra session! As a drama teacher, it was an interesting one. If you think
about it, there were SO MANY layers of metaxis going on! Children were retaining a
sense of their identity as a class - PLUS as a company - PLUS revisiting their roles as
neighbours - AND watching their teachers take on parallel roles - AND they were
standing back from those and thinking about the tone and believability of them. Funny,
come to think of it, we have not needed to talk to the children about "being" rather than
"acting" when they are in role in the company. No one has a problem with that - it's only
the drama for learning fragments within the mantle that can get a little overblown.
Hhmmm, need to keep mulling this issue over!
Why would children be more like to "act" up the drama for learning bits. I guess it's to do
with not having built belief in those roles. Yes, of course....! Without built belief, children
are likely to play stereotypes and character parts.
Another issue playing into this is that the class was fresh out of a highly successful
school production in which many of them had enjoyed playing 'over the top' comic roles.
This might help to explain why they tended towards this kind of role play in the
classroom.
Perhaps, too, as Gay suggests, children sometimes need the first go at comedic stuff
before going deeper.
I'm also wondering whether all the extra pairs of eyes in the classroom might tend to
encourage showmanship (yesterday there were not only 13 student teachers, three
teachers and the video camera - there was also the university photographer to perform
to). The children appear to have assimilated the student teachers into the culture of their
classroom but it is almost inevitable that lots of extra folk in the room would add to the

sense of being on show. This was one reason why I felt it was good to go in for a more
private session today.
Anyway - lots to think about. Meantime, the ever obliging children in the class did a great
job and, I thought, demonstrated empathy with the problems faced by neighbours.
Immediately after the class I retired to Gay's office and wrote the letter from Gwyneth. On
Lynette's return to the class this letter was used to provoke persuasive writing in the form
of letters in role from the company to Gwyneth and her resident's society. Lovely stuff. I
have asked her for some samples so I can share them here.

THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2011, POSTS FROM THE FIRST 3 WEEKS WERE LOST AFTER THE BLOG WAS HACKED. POSTS FROM WEEK 4 ONWARD WERE RECOVERED AND ARE REPOSTED HERE IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM....

Sunday, 28 August 2011
Week 5 - The tension!
Just planning for our next session (tomorrow).
Originally we had planned to spend this week focussed on design skills - specifically,
birds eye planning and simple front on elevations. One of the student teachers has a
background in design and is all poised to go into role as a 'trainee' "checking her
understanding" with the experts.
However, I'm now having a rethink.... Having been so very 'hands on' and in the field last
week, I think it might be good to have a different kind of session. The design lesson is
another skill based hands on session. It would be good to encourage some critical
thinking about what was learned last week.
More importantly, my instinct tells me the children have had a long stint at looking at this
issue from one perspective only (that of the company). So, I feel it may be time to bring
in some drama for learning to help them look at another point of view.
Also, we have not encountered many 'tensions' in this mantle - we've been happily
humming along achieving all our goals - tensions have been to do with time constraints,
constraints of the task, difficult or incomplete text and so on. SO I think it may be time to
introduce some more ethical difficulty / obstacles. We discovered in last year's MOTE
that if we left the key tension TOO late, the company did not really have time to adapt to
what it brought in...
But if we introduce the tension of neighbour's opposition to the development at this stage,
their concerns can be factored in to the design process...
SO, here is my suggested sequence for tomorrow.
1: The usual company meeting to recap on the field trip, find out what the company
members have written in their reports etc - revisit the terms of the commission - a shared
vision for our play area. Any housekeeping points (e.g. design groups for each zone),
communications with Tim and Gerry, timeline for completion, photograph sharing.
2: Invitation to 'trainees' to look at the research boards on bats and see the work that has
been done on bat movements.
3: Using DFL (drama for learning) conventions, revisit the statues of park users that were
created last week. Develop an alternative point of view on the development -
oppositional.... Possible conventions "Gossip Mill" "overheard conversation" "Flash
forward" and 'freeze frame"
4. Regather as company to discuss implications for the commission.
Possible next steps for Lynette during the week might include: writing in role as park
users - letters of complaint to the paper? - could be followed by telephone or written
responses from the company addressing the concerns raised...? A Company letter to
Tim and Gerry to say thanks for their help - plus as clients inviting them to the
presentation (2 weeks time)
With only a couple of weeks to go, the groups will need to get stuck into their concept
design work - bearing in mind the issues raised by the 'neighbours', the need to 'flow'
from one zone to another and the original commission brief.
All this will lead them up very nicely to the lesson on birds-eye-view planning and
elevations NEXT Tuesday.

THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2011, POSTS FROM THE FIRST 3 WEEKS WERE LOST AFTER THE BLOG WAS HACKED. POSTS FROM WEEK 4 ONWARD WERE RECOVERED AND ARE REPOSTED HERE IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM....

Tuesday, 30 August 2011
Week 5 - The key tension
This week’s Tuesday session led to a great deal of reflective conversation and
thinking between Gay and I about the overall tone and direction of the mantle.
Today (Weds) I made a second, unscheduled, visit to the classroom without the
student teachers. The reason for this was that I wanted to revisit the key tension
we brought in yesterday.
So what happened yesterday?
The planned drama for learning strategies worked fine – the children seemed to
really enjoy the opportunity to play the roles. And there were many positive
things about the scenes they created. It was pleasing to see the level of
engagement and the fact that several previously unwilling children were
comfortable to participate and share. It was a romp!
However, in discussion after the session with Gay, we pondered how much the
drama had moved the mantle along.... We acknowledged that the tone of the
children’s work had remained somewhat light hearted and comedic. We also
asked ourselves some tough questions about the quality and authenticity of their
role work....
On reflection I can see that my choice of conventions led the students in a
particular direction. By inviting the children to take on roles as park users and
gossip together in a sort of ‘rumour mill’ the excitement levels got cranked up –
and by emphasising the way rumours grow and change out of all proportion, the
children went rather ‘extreme’ in their ideas.
“OMG - They are going to cut down every single tree” “I’ve heard they are
banning all dogs forever” even “The world is going to end”.
The other thing I did was limit the use of dialogue which I can now see
encouraged them to go ‘visual’ and ‘over the top’ with the result that the tone of
the sharing was rather ‘cartoonesque’ with gasps, and extreme facial expressions
and even (gulp) phoney American accents.
The really GOOD learning for me in this is to be aware of the convention that is
right for the job (how many times have I said that to student teachers ?!)
So, the repeat visit today was born out of a wish to challenge the children to go
deeper – undertake a different kind of risk taking. I had met briefly with Lynette
at the end of school yesterday and she was happy with the idea of me returning
next day...

THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2011, POSTS FROM THE FIRST 3 WEEKS WERE LOST AFTER THE BLOG WAS HACKED. POSTS FROM WEEK 4 ONWARD WERE RECOVERED AND ARE REPOSTED HERE IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM....

The field trip - how it went

Below is the plan that was written up for the field trip. It describes step by step the way
we organised things. Amazingly, we managed to stick to the timeframes proposed pretty
well.

Time Activity
frame
10am ‘Company’ has early morning tea
Student Teachers arrive at HNS
Collect and box up equipment for field
trip.
10.30 Meet in L ynette’ s room
Introduction to format for trip
Groupings formed - self-selected by
interest
Move to front of school
student teachers as ‘taxi drivers’
10.45 Gather at Balfour end of Hammond
Park.
Meet with Tim and Gerry
DLF: Stepping out of the company,
imagine and place yourself as an
existing user of the site. Spoken
thoughts of what they think seeing
company arrive...
11.00 Nominate safety warders - choose quiet
children - give them flouro vests
Set time & place to reconvene (11.50)
11.10 Groups move off to their ‘test zone’ and
carry out tests / experiments
11.50 Reconvene.
Each group briefly summarize findings
between selves.
12.00 Create new groups – mixing up the
numbers. Give 15 minutes to revisit the
‘test zones’ – each person shares back
the findings from earlier group work.
12.15 Reconvene.
Reform into research groups.
Hand out maps – Give 15 minutes.
Each research group familiarizes
themselves with their ‘design zone’ –

Back at the classroom, where I watched the 'company members' silently moving
themselves into self selected groups for the testing. The list of task areas was shared
with them and they were invited to select based on what sounded most interesting, but
the problem of "what to do if groups get too big or too small" was left to them to solve.

This was done with absolutely no fuss, or even words. Impressive.

When we arrived at the site, many of the children introduced themselves and shook
hands with the (real) council staff members who were going to work with us. Gerry and
Tim were really great at offering real world experiences in soil testing and tree
measuring. Perhaps even more importantly, they were capable of positioning the
children as experienced experts... I heard them both using adult vocabulary and
terminology. It makes the world of difference, I believe, for a child to be told "now this
laser measure has a fairly complex operating system and to understand that I would
need to forward you a copy of the manual, so for now perhaps I will set the co-ordinates
for you" than to hear "this machine is too tricky for you kids, let me do it". Ka pai Tim and
Gerry!
The groups elected a 'safety rep' (one of the children) who was given responsibility for
briefing the team on safety implications to bear in mind. The safety rep was identified by
a flouro jacket. Children appeared to take this task very seriously and the language
register that was used was clearly elevated. I enjoyed the sense of trust and respect
implied in this. I guess by leaving it to children to judge what was safe behaviour and
manage themselves, we were telling them we thought they were capable of it.
Management of the children was not an issue as there was a high level of engagement
in the tasks. This is partly because the children had self selected their tasks, partly
because they all had a wider purpose for undertaking the tasks. This was not a case of
hearing teachers say 'We are learning to measure this site because it's useful to know
about measurement and how to use click wheels' but rather, hearing the CHILDREN say
'we should probably measure the whole perimeter and then think about bits which are
most suitable for the actual play area to go and focus on those'. The student teachers
had planned tasks, but I also believe the children had a clear sense of what they wanted
to know and why these activities were important to their wider objective of adventure
playground design.
The drama for learning (DFL) in this example was minimal but quite important. Just
briefly, on their way into the park, students carried out a conversation imagining an
'incident' they had overcome on the journey to the site - this was done to maintain
awareness of the fictional expert frame they were operating in. Another DFL moment
occurred when children were asked to put themselves in role as someone who uses the
park every day. They took up a frozen shape showing what that person does to enjoy the
site already (there were dog-walkers, frizbee players, tree climbers, river swimmers and
so on). This task sowed the seed for a future tension.
For me, the highlight of the session was towards the end when the children feeding back
to their peers as a representative of their research group. As every teacher knows,
having to explain or teach another person is itself a really good way to consolidate the
learning in one's own head. As Phil Race reminds us, it's also an excellent way to assess
the learning that has happened. Assessment for learning within an authentic context
using real world examples. Sounds good - no wonder it felt like a highlight!

THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2011, POSTS FROM THE FIRST 3 WEEKS WERE LOST AFTER THE BLOG WAS HACKED. POSTS FROM WEEK 4 ONWARD WERE RECOVERED AND ARE REPOSTED HERE IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM....

Thursday, 25 August 2011
Week 4 - The big field trip
This week saw our field trip to the site of our proposed adventure play area. We decided
this year to incorporate a 'real' trip to a 'real' local site, as a way of connecting the Mantle
experience to the local community and environment. There was a little confusion when
the permission slips were handed out to the children in the class .... By this time they are
comfortable with the fact that this is an imagined commission. However, with the
permission slips, some just needed to check "Do we actually take these home to our
actual parents or...."
For the teachers and student teachers, the field trip took quite a bit of organising,
particularly in terms of ensuring that the activities that occurred in the space were of high
quality and involved learning of an appropriate level. The student teachers took the
challenge of being responsible for planning a task within a particular "testing zone" as
shown below. They did really well at ensuring that the tasks were both professional tasks
appropriate to the commission AND learning tasks appropriate to learning levels and
curriculum requirements. In my next post I will talk about how it actually went!